In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench
that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the
true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people
who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is
much higher than we believe it to be.
In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes.
Ben
On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when
> shmitta is d'Orayta again?

R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being
d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the
right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita
becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it
unethical. >>>
Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a
d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel
promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out.
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150913/a07644c1/attachment-0001.htm>

The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at -
http://hebrewbooks.org/53838
review of sefer -
http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html
Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok
Oratz
Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and
Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ.
God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written
a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1].
Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you
will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and
repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common
denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and
Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be
expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched
in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free
will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious
discussion of Teshuva.
But therein lays the dilemma.
For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one
should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is
our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and
worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the
concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]?
And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that
we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God
Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere
commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed
commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves?
This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the
thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in
particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay
between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the
status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall.
Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not
familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating
comments even for those who are.
My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial
statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads
to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts,
and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R'
Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper
understanding.
My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will
further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150913/a83cb77a/attachment-0001.htm>

See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is
merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But
we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give
us that kind of good rather than the other kind.
http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chap
ter-26.htm
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams

On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The
>> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right
>> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when
>> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din
>> declares it unethical.
>
> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a
> d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how
> Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to
> point it out.
How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita
is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The
question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei
din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering
it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's
day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was
already derabbanan.
The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa
in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a
way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was
derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and
publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about
using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan
status at all.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams

In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me:
>> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without
Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a
lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under
this-worldly lighting conditions. <<
> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no
super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where
one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for
more milk next week). <
A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the
human eye without opening it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150913/f4beafea/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But
::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you
::> won't experience that as a good thing.
...
: We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" --
: what ra? I thought there is no ra?
Addenda in response to private email:
Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience,
the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong..
But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis,
that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam
or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh,
it is letovah.
Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout
blessing others with shanah tovah.
...
: Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be
: experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even
: that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.)
But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good
than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or
uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah
considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick
darkness of makas choshekh.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
: A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the
: human eye without opening it.
The sun is also an external tool.
This is wh I think we need more nuance here.
It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung
that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is
a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung
weren't in the way.
But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be
a obvious difference.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash.
Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind
to understand
Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics,
mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of
Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand
as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many
places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely
to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but
we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about
Hashem ...
The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since
Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah
and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found
answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer
his mind as an
"akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found
answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal
truth of the Torah,
the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific
finds which are subject
to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments
on this subject.
"... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed
his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s
command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind
to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah
required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins.
"Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand
Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics,
mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of
Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand
as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many
places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely
to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but
we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about
Hashem ...
"... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact
it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ
our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's
will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or
contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to
attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study.
"... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason
allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions,
nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further
with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must
be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We
must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right
whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of
the mind.'
"When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our
basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if
the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it
to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as
yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding
the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I
have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to
be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which
clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit
that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right
because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is
"Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers
will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the
meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations,
we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch
Hu.''
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150913/f03783b4/attachment-0001.htm>

From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte
Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that
whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen
in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it
this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.)
Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year."
Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated.
YL
>>>>>
When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei
shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and
financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone.
Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves)
brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our
limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the
dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing
what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need
the surgery in the first place.
However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems
philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that
feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His
philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind.
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150913/bc121250/attachment-0001.htm>

On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
>> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever
>> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim
>> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we
>> can use mythical creatures as metaphors.
> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty
> plural to me.
Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is
that of a re'em.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams

On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote:
> Lisa wrote:
>> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty
>> plural to me.
> Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&amp;pgnum=227
I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly
addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these
notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided
to mash them together at random.)
--
Zev Sero KvChT
z...@sero.name
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodahhttp://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
***************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)